Lal v. Enloe Medical Center ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Jessup Lal, No. 2:22-cv-01540-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Enloe Medical Center, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Following the death of plaintiff Jessup Lal, plaintiff's surviving spouse, Sareela Lal, 18 | requests substitution in her capacity as the legal representative of the decedent’s estate. For the 19 | reasons below, the court grants Ms. Lal’s motion to substitute. 20 | I. BACKGROUND 21 Jessup Lal brought this employment action against defendants Enloe Medical Center and 22 | Angela Sidney in Butte County Superior Court. Compl., Not. Removal, ECF No. 1-1. 23 | Defendants removed the case to this court. Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Shortly after the assigned 24 | magistrate judge scheduled the case, see Sched. Order, ECF No. 12, defendants notified the court 25 | that Mr. Lal had died, Notice of Death, ECF No. 18. Accordingly, the assigned magistrate judge 26 | modified the scheduling order and vacated the litigation schedule. Order (Apr. 26, 2023), ECF 27 | No. 20. ] Mr. Lal’s surviving spouse and the special administrator of his estate, Sareela Lal, moves 2 | to be substituted as the proper party to proceed as plaintiff. Mot., ECF No. 21. Defendants have 3 | filed a statement of non-opposition. Statement, ECF No. 22. The court held a hearing on the 4 | matter on June 30, 2023. Hr’g Mins., ECF No. 23. Angela Hooper appeared for plaintiff, and 5 | Sareela Lal was also present. Douglas Ropel represented defendant. HW. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTY 7 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, if'a party dies and their claim remains viable, 8 | the court may substitute a proper party, such as the decedent’s successor or representative. 9 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). The motion must be filed within 90 days after service of the statement 10 | noting the death. /d.; see also Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1994). “In deciding 11 | a motion to substitute under Rule 25(a)(1), a court must consider whether: (1) the motion is 12 | timely; (2) the claims pled are extinguished; and (3) the person being substituted is a proper 13 | party.” Veliz v. Cintas Corp., No. 03-1180, 2008 WL 2811171, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2008). 14 Here, Ms. Lal has met all requirements to be substituted as plaintiff. First, Ms. Lal timely 15 | moved to substitute: the notice of Mr. Lal’s death was filed on March 7, 2023, and Ms. Lal filed 16 | her motion on May 23, 2023. Compare Notice of Death with Mot. Second, as explained in Ms. 17 | Lal’s motion, California law permits a decedent’s personal representative or successor to maintain 18 | acause of action, unless a statute provides otherwise; death does not extinguish a legal claim. 19 | Mot. at 5 (citing Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 377.20, 377.30, 377.34, 377.40). Lastly, Ms. Lal is a 20 | “proper party” within the meaning of Rule 25 because she was appointed special administrator of 21 | Mr. Lal’s estate, which expressly includes the power to maintain lawsuits and retain counsel. See 22 | Order Appointing Special Administrator at 4-6, Hooper Decl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 21-1. Asa result, 23 | the court grants Ms. Lal’s motion. 24) WI. CONCLUSION 25 As explained above, the court grants Sareela Lal’s motion to substitute, ECF No. 21. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: July 5, 2023. 28 Abul Ln CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE